Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 103kWORD 24k
21 January 2016
E-000476-16
Question for written answer E-000476-16
to the Commission
Rule 130
Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE)

 Subject:  Foie gras: follow-up to Written Question P-13307/15
 Answer in writing 

In relation to the Commission’s answer, given by Mr Hogan, to Written Question P‐013307/2015:

Can the Commission provide the details of the mentioned assessment, e.g. who conducted it and when, and ‘whether the definition given in the French law would prevent any fatty liver obtained by alternative methods from being considered and hence marketed as “foie gras” in France’, as stated by Commissioner Borg in his answer to Question E-010605/2012?

If the answer on the above point is affirmative, how does the Commission intend to lift the obstacle to the marketing of ‘foie gras’ obtained by alternative methods created by such a restrictive definition (answer pending since November 2012 because the Commissioner linked it to the assessment)?

Question E-010605/2012 was based on the recommendations of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes — also mentioned in Mr Hogan’s answer. It follows that both the first answer and the answer to a similar question were provided by the Commissioner competent for animal welfare.

Can the Commission explain why the answer to Question P-013307/2015 was given by Mr Hogan instead of Mr Andriukaitis?

Legal notice